amenoum.org blog blog_entry 0 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5718446 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5718446 /authors/Amenoum.html#credits

# B . L O G

[ 2021.12.12 ] Finding sense in quanta of nonsense
MESSAGE 0010: BEGIN
Log author: by Amenoum
Log date: 2021.12.12
In mathematics, in my interpretation, the number i is a quantum of nonsense - it is a superposition of numbers -1 and +1 (sometimes represented by $\sqrt{-1}$). When multiplied by a number it becomes positive or negative nonsense. Only when multiplied by another i, one of them collapses to -1, the other to +1, and the product makes sense, becoming a number -1. In other words, multiplication operator applied to imaginary numbers is also the operator of collapse of entangled superpositions. Still, creators of abstract nonsense are surprised when they find nonsense in the physical world. Really? Why wouldn't superposition (nonsense) exist in physical world? Proofs are everywhere. You're one evidence. Nonsense in nature is not questionable. Insisting that all nonsense is absolute or abstract nonsense is nonsense. Such nonsense only makes sense to nonsense ruling the world. Avoiding nonsense Note that nonsense in mathematics (such as negative and imaginary numbers) can yield a perfectly valid real solution (eg. when it shows up in an intermediate step toward the solution). But that nonsense is not absolute. One way to make sense of it is to assume that both negative and imaginary numbers exist in reality as different dimensions, even if these dimensions are non-intuitive to us. In other words, as it is common among mathematical physicists (reductionists), one can accept the notion that nature is, on some levels, non-intuitive. However, there are other interpretations, such as missing variables. Note that definitions of mathematical operations are human inventions and one doesn't have to take them as absolute. Nonsense can then be avoided through redefinition of operators. For example, let's redefine x2, or generalize it, to a function of 2 variables: $\displaystyle f(x, y) = {(x,y)}^2 = x \times y$ $\displaystyle y \in \left\{x, -x\right\}$ Now, for y = -x the function gives negative numbers. And for y = x it reduces to the established definition of the squaring operator. The square root is now: $\displaystyle \sqrt{{(x,y)}^2} = (x|y)$ where (x|y) can be understood as superposition of x and y, where (x|x) = x. Next one can define a square of superposition: $\displaystyle {(x|y)}^2 = {(x,y)}^2 = x \times y$ Note that it is the non-intuitive interpretation of certain operators that makes reality non-intuitive. Take the squaring function. One probably assumes it should give a positive number because in reality the two-dimensional areas always give a positive number when measured. However, a negative sign could represent a specific orientation of the area relative to some coordinate system, not a negative area. Suppose you have a piece of land, 3 km × 3 km in area and your neighbour has an equal 3 km × 3 km piece of land left of you. Now, let's say you're measuring areas starting from the south-west corner of your land. You measure your land as 3 × 3 = 9 km2, but you measure your neighbour's land as -3 × 3 = -9 km2. By the intuitive definition of the squaring function you now understand that your neighbour has an equal piece of land but positioned left of you (as indicated by the negative sign). In other words, by redefining the squaring function you have uncovered a hidden variable that makes negative numbers intuitive in reality. To make his life easier, a reductionist will [ab]use the Occam's razor and choose the simple definition of the squaring function and then claim that negative numbers are somehow real but non-intuitive. In other words, don't think about it, just shut up and calculate.. Why? Well, if you refuse to be reduced to a fucking calculator and instead do think about it, you might discover what a load of bullshit this blind reductionism is. The common reaction (complaint) of people who glimpsed at my works has been: "Why do you have to redefine everything?". Well, because I want to understand everything! When foundations are bad one can only produce more nonsense on top of the existing nonsense. I'm not interested in that. The same simple squaring function is one source of the non-intuitive interpretation of particles in quantum mechanics (QM). The wavefunctions assigned to particles can have negative values but to obtain values corresponding to physical states the value of the wavefunction is squared. If one rotates the electron by 360° in physical space the wavefunction corresponding to its spin momentum becomes negative (because the rotation in associated [abstract] state space is twice slower, rotation of 360° in physical space corresponds to 180° in state space), but physically the electron is assumed to be unchanged because the square of the negative value is the same as the square of the initial value (equal to the rotation of land in the example above - the land remains physically the same when rotated). In reality, however, the negative value of the wavefunction likely corresponds to different orientation - just like in the example above, but since we cannot measure this orientation reductionists assume that the negative value has no meaning (in other words, they assume that hidden variables do not exist), thus, they use the simple squaring function. It is as simple as that. A hidden variable, however, does not have to represent different orientation, it generally represents something unresolvable (we are not almighty gods to be able to resolve everything!), which, for example, can be an additional component - eg. a constitutional particle of the particle assumed to be elementary. Generally, blind reductionism and blind absolutism are the sources of all nonsense (non-intuitive interpretations) in QM.
MESSAGE 0010: END